Rangers Banter Archive November 25 2012

25 Nov 2012 14:56:52
I see that uefa have released their latest club co-efficient rankings... and rangers are 84th! However, it show our previous campaigns in our ranking... so does that mean uefa also (correctly) consider us the same club... meaning it is only the east enders who are still in denial?

And they list last game played May 2012.

Nope, UEFA have the old clubs last game played at St Johnstone in May.

Different parent company, same club. I bought my dad a brick on the stadium and its still there 7 years on. You can't delete history, you can try but you will fail. 54 titles, still going strong.

Maxweber

So if uefa believe we ended in may why have they carried our co efficients over to our new parent company?

@3 well said, only one group of people cannot accept we were, still and always will be Scotland's most succesful club.
By the way does anyone know if their manager has managed to get all his toys back in the pram, oh dear...

Lol why did green buy "assets" rather than a "club" ?!?!?!?

@4 did they or is it the old club they are talking about,they ain't liquidated yet
Tam

History?..Well read& learn extinct bears(formerly wounded bears)..A notibale for PAST EVENTS...No longer present,participating,or relevant!..& All thats rememberd is the memories of days gone bye!..stevo,......Bring on charlie chuckles,too take centre stage,in the next few days,too play too the crowd,hey,its panto season,,lmao!!1in a row..

Stevo....it is indeed panto season and your the biggest clown on the act....oh yes you are!!
how can you get "1 in a row!" doh
think you should concentrate more on your own team and their half empty ground...(wheres all the glory hunters gone haha?),not long before the ginger whinger gets chased away by your fickle fans just like wee chesney was

waldo

Uefa only list top tier clubs. It's oldco being listed not newco.
Oldco is to be listed until liquidation complete then no mention of any RAngers until new club get into SPL.

25 Nov 2012 09:40:31
Hi Ed. The Tax Case as it stands is payments made from EBT were Repayable Loans. Does this mean ALL loans must be repaid? 50M would be a big boost to creditors {The Ed039's Note - Its not that simple, how these "loans" are to be recollected or when they become due for payment is up for interpritation)

In addition to the Ed's point the loans themselves were administered and distributed by MIH who are not in administration or liquidation and have no relationship with Rangers creditors. The loans are repayable to them, not Rangers, and even in the unlikely event that they were repaid in full tomorrow the creditors would not see a penny of it as they are separate entities. Rangers paid out annual, non returnable lump sums to MIH to perform a service just as they would their lawyers etc. The service MIH provided was to set up an EBT trust fund and pay these players in the form of loans. Rangers cannot ask for these lump sums back as it was deliberately set up that way to keep Rangers and MIH autonomous from each other with regards paying the players in this manner.

Brian

One thing this is clear cut is their collectible from their estate and becomes due for repayment if they snuff it

This whole EBT thing stinks. Why people that earn 40K a week require loans to dodge tax is beyond me when normal working class people are paying the correct level of tax. I dont like paying it but I have too. The people that received these loans (that apparently dont require to be paid back, figure that one out) should have a good look at themselves and ask, was what I done correct?

Brian you seem to be saying rangers fc and mih put money beyond the hands of creditors and shareholders.....

you do know there are laws against that, criminal ones....

3 @4 I abhor EBT's and any other avoidance scheme on the go, I have made that clear on here many a time. Everyone knows these weren't loans, but to make it legal they had to be seen to be loans and received autonomous from the club. Does that make me proud or happy about their use by my club? Of course not, and that would probably be the same for 99% of Rangers fans. However, they have been used and I am simply commenting on the processes I perceive to have taken place and why, despite everyone's moral misgivings on the matter, Rangers appear to have acted within the law on this occasion.

@4 in particular. This has absolutely nothing to do with the creditors and I will explain why. It is purely between the trust set up by MIH (who are still solvent and don't have creditors in the same sense the Oldco does), the recipients of the loan and HMRC. As soon as the payment left Rangers accounts and entered those of the trust that was the end of it as far as Rangers were concerned legally. The value of the lump sum Rangers paid annually would have, theoretically at least, included the value of tax to be paid by each player. It would have shown in the credit column of the balance sheets as it was an outgoing payment (not as a potential debit which may be returnable to the club as your post would imply). The trust then paid the players the full amount, including the value of attributable tax, thus avoiding paying HMRC what they were due from the wages. Now HMRC await payment from the players which may or may not occur within the lifetime of the recipient and cannot be pursued quicker than that. It is as simple as (and unpalatable to most) as that. However, it has been judged legal and even if the decision went the other way the creditors would still not LEGALLY be entitled to any of it. As I said, it only involves HMRC, the trust and the players, not Rangers.

Brian

p.s. when the schemes were operational Rangers did not have the creditors you are referring to in your post. How could they have knowingly put money beyond creditors (which as I have explained they haven't anyway) if they didn't exist when EBT's were used anyway? Your point does not make any sense in relation to the topic at hand.

Brian appreciate your reply...very honest

but creditors include rangers shareholders (fans) whom invested thier funds in thie club, when directors put that money into trusts and then traded while unable to pay bills they could have carried out two crimes...

rangers fans who invested before can now see that thier £8 million went abroad and will never return to help rebuild.

now fans asked again for £20 million, is history going to repeat itself...

amazing how no one on this site asking for enquiry into what murray and directors did, but what hrmc (which uncovered these actions)

talk about shooting the messenger....

26,000 rangers fans lost money in the collapse, money they wanted to sistain thier club..... and none of them want to know why...

"However, it has been judged legal and even if the decision went the other way the creditors would still not LEGALLY be entitled to any of it"

creditors would have legal entitlement, this thejob of administrators and liquidators , to recover funds and if necessary bring charges against directors and roll back transaction...

but you may be right in that creditors will never see this money , the choice of off-shore trusts (what forsight) , means bdo will be unable to recover this to pay oldcos debt

its almost as this was the plan from day 1

is there much difference between murray and whyte...... ?

@6 Murray and the directors decided to take the advice of a porn star accountant and run with it. However, it has since been decreed legal. The main problem for me was MIM were in hawk up to its neck with Lloyds (HBOS) and Murray could no longer sustain Rangers, then, under pressure from the bank, he off loaded the club to the first person who came along - Whyte. Things went from bad to worse from there. Murray is at fault for believing HMRC wouldn't pursue the EBT's at a future date and for the bad management of his main company having such a drastic impact on Rangers but I can't see a need for an enquiry that would cost even more tax payer millions to tell what we already know. He wasn't the entrepreneur he thought he was and he got found out when the recession/banking crisis hit.

However, there is a pertinent question that no-one seems interested in asking which I would like an answer to (particularly as, to me, this would certainly be in direct relation to the creditors). The 2.6m (or whatever the actual figure was) with-held by the SPL - where did it go? It didn't go to Rangers, it didn't go in the pot for the creditors that every non-Rangers fan seems to care passionately about, it clearly didn't pay any of the outstanding football debts (which was why I thought it was kept) and it has never been mentioned since. So what happened to it? Rangers were still in administration at the end of the season so it couldn't have been divided up between the remaining clubs - Rangers, and their two hundred and odd creditors, were still running. Where did it go? Am I the only person that is wondering about this? 2.6 m would make a real difference to what the creditors receive and it was due to the club, unlike any tax due from EBT's.

Brian

26 Nov 2012 01:42:22
@brian the thing that is confusing me even more is the fact that some of the ebts were deemed as illegal and tax is owed on them. What makes them different to the 'majority' of the ebts looked at?

@9 legal ebts are the ones run in accordance with loan rules and no tax due, illegal ebts were not run properly and tax is due (30+ of them).

Simple admin difference, but its difference between £0 bill and £5+ million (penalties + interest) in this case.

@9. As poster 10 has said it now becomes purely an administration issue. Tax will be due from these individual cases as somewhere down the line a clerical error has been made. This might have a bearing on the dual contracts issue, admittedly, but would still not aid the creditors of Oldco as HMRC will pursue these cases independently of Rangers now the liquidation process has begun. That is the reason HMRC did not do a deal regards the CVA in the first place in my opinion. They felt they had a strong case and by forcing Rangers into liquidation they stood to gain far more, if they had won, by chasing the individuals involved than by sharing a small pot with umpteen other creditors. If they do decide to appeal and waste even more taxpayers money in the process then this will be the main reason why. If all 80 odd were administered incorrectly then a larger sum may be recouped from the individuals. HMRC have absolutely no interest in the other creditors and will still take their share of the pot in relation to the non payment of PAYE and NI from Whyte's legacy.

Brian

@11 hard to see how hrmc were intent on liquidation, they had presented £25million bill at start of process on business whose accounts lists £100+ million of assets

only the delaying tactics emplyed by gers (a police raid needed to progress case!!!) which magnified scale beyond the tipping point...

hrmc will have seen tax payment from rangers drop year by year with no clear explanation, as ftt states as uncontested facts, mr red (mih) refused to cooperate with hmrc to explain why....

all rangers needed was to hold hand up , but sticking to innocent at every stage keeps coming back to haunt them....

@12 Fair comment mate apart from the coming back to haunt them. HMRC lost the case. I would also suggest sticking to legally correct at every stage instead of innocent at every stage. Everyone knows it was an avoidance scheme, Murray in particular. For me there are two points to be considered. Delays obviously occurred but why, when offered £10m out of a £25m debt, did they refuse despite accepting a similar circa £10m from Arsenal from a substantially larger potential debt which was alleged to be around £300m? Refuse an offer of 20% of a relatively small debt by comparison yet accept only 3% of a massive debt? Why? The only explanation I can think of is that they felt the case against Rangers was watertight and the case against Arsenal was ropey. What other explanation could there be? Having failed to settle for ten million two years previously they actually stated that refusing Rangers a CVA and confirming liquidation would allow the club to move forward and leave them free to chase those responsible for the debt (Murray/MIH for EBT's and Whyte for PAYE and NI) rather than chase the club (who by that point had no money to pay them with anyway). So yes, once we were in administration and they realised they would be receiving next to nothing HMRC appear to have purposefully resigned us to liquidation (unlike their acceptance of Portsmouth's CVA despite being in the same position three times in a very short period of time) with the intent of pursuing the individuals they held responsible after winning the BTC. It exploded in their faces last week when the case proved less watertight than they clearly thought it was.

Brian

25 Nov 2012 01:24:33
Just woke up in perth sunny australia to the welcome news that the famous glasgow celtic have been beaten AGAIN then a fan turns on mr celtic the story continues reports in oz say the fan was sitting in row z and said to his mate that lennon must go and team was s#it and due to fact that there were only a few hundred fans left at end of game he was overheard left glasgow 4 years ago after 30 years in copland miss games so so so much but a big thank you from us all in kinross australia for the bears keeping the blue flag flying high ps thousands of us in western australia love to all in the blue half of scotland follow follow

You realise that in the 4 years since you've left Minty Moonbeams sold Rangers for £1 before the bank liquidated them, less than 12 months after said sale HMRC put them to the sword. Rangers are no more I'm afraid.

24 Nov 2012 21:56:54
"So somehow a tax bill for millions due to "aggressive tax avoidance" and players almost certainly improperly registered with the SFA because of that method of payment ends up on the redtops as "Rangers innocent".

Sums it all up in one sentence. Radio Clyde has been a painful listen the last few nights. Case in point. Last night they let a not so bright Rangers fan warble on as if he was talking to himself in his shed for at least six minutes completely uninterrupted, yet the minute a non-Rangers fan made a point they were interrupted immediately.

Also, someone might want to explain to Daryl King what the SPL investigation is all about as he's basically informed the Rangers fans that they have no case to answer on dual contracts either. They believe this rubbish and when it doesn't pan out the way that are told it should they go mental.

Ouch. Someone's having a bad day.

If rangers are found guilty for duel contracts now I WILL NEVER GOTO ANOTHER SPL GAME, if Celtic never had a cause to answer with the wee Brazilian than rangers don't have a case to answer, rangers are not guilty get over it and start thinking of your own team.

@2. I wouldn't worry about it, CG said Rangers will not be back in the SPL - especially in it's current form. As for the Dual Contract stuff, i expect them to scrap the title stripping punishment they no doubt had planned before the EBT verdict. Failure to do so will 'make up my mind' that they intended to strip the titles all along irrespective of the EBT verdict. bigbaz